Demonizing people

[Syne]

Mod notes

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people&p=3178425&viewfull=1#post3178425

Advice about content
10. Post personal information at your own risk.​

Members cannot be credibly accused of trolling or being disingenuous solely on exercising their right to privacy.
___________________________________________________________

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people&p=3178008&viewfull=1#post3178008

I could take any of this members post in this thread. None offer any argument other than name-calling. Ad hominems are generally a violation, but without any attempt to support them they also constitute trolling.
___________________________________________________________

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people&p=3178477&viewfull=1#post3178477

Repeatedly calling someone a liar and refusing, even when repeatedly told, to read the earlier posts in the thread to clear up your misunderstanding is trolling.
___________________________________________________________

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people&p=3178627&viewfull=1#post3178627

Considering the general hysteria here about comparing homosexuality to a variety of things (and it not helping your case), perhaps you should not use a Wiki page that discussed pederasty (what we would now call pedophilia or child molestation) as the "history of same-sex unions".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis#.22Same-sex_union.22_or_.22brother-making.22.3F
___________________________________________________________

Generally, commenting on the posting style of others is off-topic, especially without any substantial on-topic content in the post.



Many posters in this thread could have received warnings/infractions, and many of those would have been due to their behavior while criticizing that of others. Perhaps it is a better idea to argue the subject of the thread rather than the assumed character traits of others.

 

[Balerion]

Member Notes

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people&p=3178425&viewfull=1#post3178425

Advice about content
10. Post personal information at your own risk.​

Members cannot be credibly accused of trolling or being disingenuous solely on exercising their right to privacy.

That's not what happened. Jan avoids divulging his beliefs because, as quinn points out to him, it gives him the sense that he is above reproach. Considering that much of jan's posting involves questioning the "true faith" of others, he stands to benefit from keeping such information secret.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people&p=3178008&viewfull=1#post3178008

I could take any of this members post in this thread. None offer any argument other than name-calling. Ad hominems are generally a violation, but without any attempt to support them they also constitute trolling.

Then why did you pick a post that has no ad hominem? There were plenty of other posts by this member that actually crossed the line.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people&p=3178477&viewfull=1#post3178477

Repeatedly calling someone a liar and refusing, even when repeatedly told, to read the earlier posts in the thread to clear up your misunderstanding is trolling

Considering that referring to earlier posts does nothing to clear up the alleged "misunderstanding," I would say it's fair to accuse the person of lying.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people&p=3178627&viewfull=1#post3178627

Considering the general hysteria here about comparing homosexuality to a variety of things (and it not helping your case), perhaps you should not use a Wiki page that discussed pederasty (what we would now call pedophilia or child molestation) as the "history of same-sex unions".

Why is this a "mod note?" Your suggestion has no basis in moderation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis#.22Same-sex_union.22_or_.22brother-making.22.3F

Generally, commenting on the posting style of others is off-topic, especially without any substantial on-topic content in the post.

You just did it to Randwulf!

Many posters in this thread could have received warnings/infractions, and many of those would have been due to their behavior while criticizing that of others. Perhaps it is a better idea to argue the subject of the thread rather than the assumed character traits of others.

Yourself included.

 

[Sorcerer]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people&p=3178425&viewfull=1#post3178425

Advice about content
10. Post personal information at your own risk.​

Members cannot be credibly accused of trolling or being disingenuous solely on exercising their right to privacy.
___________________________________________________________

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people&p=3178008&viewfull=1#post3178008

I could take any of this members post in this thread. None offer any argument other than name-calling. Ad hominems are generally a violation, but without any attempt to support them they also constitute trolling.
___________________________________________________________

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people&p=3178477&viewfull=1#post3178477

Repeatedly calling someone a liar and refusing, even when repeatedly told, to read the earlier posts in the thread to clear up your misunderstanding is trolling.
___________________________________________________________

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people&p=3178627&viewfull=1#post3178627

Considering the general hysteria here about comparing homosexuality to a variety of things (and it not helping your case), perhaps you should not use a Wiki page that discussed pederasty (what we would now call pedophilia or child molestation) as the "history of same-sex unions".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis#.22Same-sex_union.22_or_.22brother-making.22.3F
___________________________________________________________

Generally, commenting on the posting style of others is off-topic, especially without any substantial on-topic content in the post.



Many posters in this thread could have received warnings/infractions, and many of those would have been due to their behavior while criticizing that of others. Perhaps it is a better idea to argue the subject of the thread rather than the assumed character traits of others.

So this is a list of all the things you could have modded but didn't? Very useful. If you think I'm going to waste my time clicking on all those stale links then you're mistaken.

 

[Gremmie]

So this is a list of all the things you could have modded but didn't? Very useful. If you think I'm going to waste my time clicking on all those stale links then you're mistaken.

Oh c'mon, now... You haven't got 8-10 hours to check those sites out? How selfish you are. Lol.

 

[Sorcerer]

Oh c'mon, now... You haven't got 8-10 hours to check those sites out? How selfish you are. Lol.

I haven't got 8-10 minutes at the moment. I'm trying to finish up my book, there's still the cover art to finalise, busy, busy.

 

[Randwolf]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people&p=3178627&viewfull=1#post3178627

Considering the general hysteria here about comparing homosexuality to a variety of things (and it not helping your case), perhaps you should not use a Wiki page that discussed pederasty (what we would now call pedophilia or child molestation) as the "history of same-sex unions".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelpho...r-making.22.3F

Wow Syne. You never cease to amaze...

...perhaps you should not use a Wiki page that discussed pederasty (what we would now call pedophilia or child molestation) as the "history of same-sex unions".​

Perhaps I should use that Wiki page. I don't think anyone here is claiming the pedophilia is limited to heterosexuals. That's the point you just don't seem to get Syne, those with a homosexual orientation are just like everyone else. If you could ever figure that simple concept out perhaps you could get past the bigotry.

Generally, commenting on the posting style of others is off-topic, especially without any substantial on-topic content in the post.

As Balerion pointed out, the hypocrisy here is astounding. Part of the implication is flat wrong, as in disingenuous, as in, dare I say, a lie? How "on-topic" does a source have to be to pass your dual standards? Or maybe, was it not "substantial" enough? I'd really like an explanation on the phrase "especially without any substantial on-topic content" as it applies to my post. Pretty please Syne?


As to this part:

Generally, commenting on the posting style of others is off-topic

You seem to do a lot of that yourself albeit while attempting to hide under the guise of "moderator".

Many posters in this thread could have received warnings/infractions, and many of those would have been due to their behavior while criticizing that of others.

Really? Why didn't they? If you think that you can substantiate an infraction for my post feel free.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sorcerer,

So to go out and stone an adulterer, or prostitute , is not the business of anyone, only to those that are properly ordained and situated in the right spiritual position. This why Jesus said ''let him WITHOUT sin cast the first stone.

So only those who are properly ordained and situated in the right spiritual position should be the ones allowed to stone adulterers and prostitutes?

Yes.

So you really do mean that adulterers and prostitutes should be stoned?

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

I think that makes you a disgusting person who doesn't belong in a civilised country. You should go to Iran or Saudi, you'd fit in really well - if you converted to Islam, that is, otherwise they'd persecute you in the same way that you persecute gay people.

How does what I said, make me a ''disgusting person''?

A proper explanation (for a change) would be appreciated (although I won't hold my breath).

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's what you said. Now tell me that's not your true opinion.

We discussed that. You're trying to deny gay people their rights, which is persecution.

I'm angry when people like you try to deny me my rights, that's for sure. You'd be angry if I tried to deny you yours.

Even if I wanted to, I couldn't deny section of people, their rights.

jan.

 

[quinnsong]

Sorcerer,



A proper explanation (for a change) would be appreciated (although I won't hold my breath).

jan.

Why anyone even bothers responding to your game is beyond me. I am sure you will not have to hold your breath too long Jan simply because some people like merry-go-rounds.

 

[Sorcerer]

Sorcerer,


How do you arrive at that conclusion?



How does what I said, make me a ''disgusting person''?

A proper explanation (for a change) would be appreciated (although I won't hold my breath).

jan.

Honestly Jan, if you can't understand the logic I really can't help you anymore.

 

[Sorcerer]

Even if I wanted to, I couldn't deny section of people, their rights.

jan.

I didn't say you could - I know that, because you don't have the power - I said you try to deny people their rights. You should at least get the grammar right.

 

[Sorcerer]

Why anyone even bothers responding to your game is beyond me. I am sure you will not have to hold your breath too long Jan simply because some people like merry-go-rounds.

That's about right, quinnsong. We are all busy people and if someone can't, or won't, understand the first time round then that's their problem.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Honestly Jan, if you can't understand the logic I really can't help you anymore.

That's unacceptable. You've made some serious allegations, and accusations, against me, which in and of themselves amount to what you have been accusing me of doing and being. Not once have you backed up your accusations.

What ''logic'' are you referring to, and how have you been trying to help me?

Can you actually back up what you're saying, or are you hitching a ride on the naked Emperor's bandwagon?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why anyone even bothers responding to your game is beyond me. I am sure you will not have to hold your breath too long Jan simply because some people like merry-go-rounds.

And here was me thinking we were getting along.

jan.

 

[quinnsong]

And here was me thinking we were getting along.

jan.

Ha! Funny, funny! Oh dear, you have set the bar low, I see. Seriously, there is a comfort level I do have with you Jan, you sound just like most of my relatives in the South.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Ha! Funny, funny! Oh dear, you have set the bar low, I see. Seriously, there is a comfort level I do have with you Jan, you sound just like most of my relatives in the South.

I was only joking, I know fakery (in these situations) when I see it.

jan.

 

[Aqueous Id]

So this is a list of all the things you could have modded but didn't? Very useful. If you think I'm going to waste my time clicking on all those stale links then you're mistaken.

I clicked on them to see if I was being ambushed and noticed that they are directed to the the main contributors here who are posting -- guess what -- the anti-homophobe, pro-atheist position. I think I'll just push off into a forum that isn't being flamed like this. I like reading both sides of the argument here, but this just kills the appetite.

 

[Sorcerer]

That's unacceptable. You've made some serious allegations, and accusations, against me, which in and of themselves amount to what you have been accusing me of doing and being. Not once have you backed up your accusations.

What ''logic'' are you referring to, and how have you been trying to help me?

Can you actually back up what you're saying, or are you hitching a ride on the naked Emperor's bandwagon?

jan.

I'll leave it to the mods to see if what I've said is unacceptable, so why don't you report it?

 

[Sorcerer]

I clicked on them to see if I was being ambushed and noticed that they are directed to the the main contributors here who are posting -- guess what -- the anti-homophobe, pro-atheist position. I think I'll just push off into a forum that isn't being flamed like this. I like reading both sides of the argument here, but this just kills the appetite.

I hope you mean another forum on this board: I'd hate to see you leave this place entirely.

 

[Randwolf]

I clicked on them to see if I was being ambushed and noticed that they are directed to the the main contributors here who are posting -- guess what -- the anti-homophobe, pro-atheist position. I think I'll just push off into a forum that isn't being flamed like this. I like reading both sides of the argument here, but this just kills the appetite.

Don't go Aqueous, your posts contribute a great deal. You are very logical and your posts most informative.

Stick around awhile, I have a feeling change is in the wind and we won't have to put up with such bigotry long. I may be mistaken but I have been here a long time and I just have a hunch that a certain someone is going to overstep the boundaries any day now...